PSII-21 Evaluating the environmental impact of feed ingredients in beef feed formulation.

Abstract The aim of this study is to assess the environmental impact from the Catalan (North-Eastern Spain) feed production intended for beef farms with the focus on the ingredients and their geographical origin, as it holds the greatest weight on the environmental impact. To assess the environmental footprint of the Catalan feed production for the year of reference (2023), feed mills with the greatest production rates were identified. This allowed for a representation of a 46% of the total of this type of feed produced in Catalonia. An average feed formula was calculated for each production phase and feed mill, and the geographical origin of the ingredients was considered to differentiate the impact from regional practices and production rates. This aspect is also important in the case of the water footprint, as sensitivity to the impact depends on the water availability of the region. Functional unit was 1 kg of feed product at feed mill entry gate. Scope included impact from feed ingredients production and transport to the feed mill. This abstract focusses on the carbon (CC) and water footprint (WF) assessed using EF 3.1 (EC, 2021). Secondary datasets used were from Ecoinvent v3.9 and Agribalyse 3.1.1. The footprint from an average European feed (PEFCR 2024) was calculated with the same criteria as the rest of the Catalan feed. Catalan weighted (by production rates) beef feed footprints (Table 1) were in the same order of magnitude than the average European results (CC: 1.36 kg CO2eq; WF: 3.49 m3eq). However, individual feed mill average footprints (Figure 1) showed large data spread in some phases, including some atypical values, which suggests margin for improvement. Drivers of environmental impact included: i) high inclusion rates, mostly cereals like barley; ii) specific production practices in origin, like deforestation processes linked to soy production (Brazil, or Argentina). Irrigated crops such as maize coming from Ukraine were critical. Also crops that are mostly rainfed but with a small occurrence of irrigation greatly contributed to the WF (e.g.: wheat) because of coming from water deprived regions like Spain. Spanish rice was another of the hotspots. Simply reducing the critical ingredient in the formula might just trade the impact to another source. Using geographical origins with better production rates or less impactful practices or using irrigated crops from areas with lower water deficit, can reduce CC and WF, overcoming the potential increase in impact from transport. Transport accounted for less than a third of the footprint in most cases, and its impact depends on the means of transportation, not only on the distance. Overall, solutions need to be addressed considering areas less sensitive to impact and with less impactful practices, while maintaining the nutritional balance, production rates and animal wellbeing.